Slashdot Mirror
War of the Worlds, Chocolate Factory Trailers
rocketjam writes "The trailer for Tim Burton's version of 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' is online at Yahoo. The movie stars Johnny Depp and scheduled for release in July of '05. I think Tim Burton is the perfect director for a new Willie Wonka movie. The trailer looks very Burtonesque." And reader daquake writes "Our first peek at Steven Spielberg's contemporary version of War of the Worlds is available from Apple. Spielberg's installment is just one of many that have been developed throughout the years including a film produced last year n England."
*Yawn*
Evil, vaguely Arabic aliens invade. Only the square jawed hero (played by the guy from that movie that was vaguely popular last year), the love interest (with that woman from the movie your girlfriend watched) and the wisecracking black sidekick (fuck knows, they all look the same to me) can defeat them. 2 hours of bland Hollywood shite. This is the sight of a culture so bereft of originality that plagiarism is hailed as a creative force.
All they seem to do now is remake movies that don't need to be remade. The original Willy Wonka was a perfectly excellent film and I see no need to ruin it with a remake. Same with War of the Worlds.
Whatever happened to original scripts?
And it was pure, unmitigated crap. What's wrong with steampunk Victorians fighting off a Martian invasion? It's not like Hollywood has any regard for science anyway.
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
Well, Gene Wilder I think had an important insight into the character. Willy Wonka is supposed to be scary even a bit creepy. He is not like your parents, who will protect you from the consequences of your actions. He will let you be free, but you have to suffer the consequences.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Its nice to see that there is no creativity left in the movie industry. Why not come up with something new instead of redoing movies that there perfectly good to begin with.
that means:
Willy wonka....
War of the worlds...
Oceans 11..
Manchurian candidate.
Star Wars special editions.
While we are at it might as well remake casablanca.
And teen wolf.
While I think Burton will do a decent job with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I really don't think it stands a chance of beating the 1971 version with Gene Wilder. There's a certain magic to it that I don't think can be replicated so easily into a polished Hollywood flick, no matter who's directing.
War of the Worlds, so far, looks like one worth checking out.
SNACKS ARE AWESOME
If only I had mod points, if only. That was really, really funny.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Canadian comic Sean Cullen does a great bit on this guy. http://www.seancullen.com/
The formula is:
* "In a world..."
* followed by some sort of contradiction
* "one man..."
* is doing some generic action
They run the bit on those "Just for Laughs" shows on CBC every so often.
He will let you be free, but you have to suffer the consequences.
Just because his actions creep you out (that crooked smile and that detached wonder he seems to have) does not mean that he has to look like The Crow in a purple robe or a hollow eyed heroin addict.
Does anyone remember Planet of the Apes? The original is a classic, and Burton's remake was one of the most memorable stinkers in recent movie history. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a classic film, even if it doesn't hew very closely to the book, and I fear that a Burton remake will be Planet of the Apes all over again. Please, Tim Burton, leave my childhood alone.
If you were a hot dog, and you were starving, would you eat yourself?
No, the original film based on the musical was not too much like the book, but this movie doesn't look like it will shape up to capture the 'feel' of the book either. The book was always goofy but with an edge of sinister that you just couldn't grasp. This trailer with the music chosen and the silly slapstick Burton has Depp doing as well as the camera direction (the down shot on the group standing next to the chocolate river) makes it feel like Burton isn't catching the British part of all of this.
Just like Planet of the Apes, he just doesn't 'get' the concept of the story and even if he is truer to hard action the original work, he just doesn't have it in him to be true to the idea of it.
So, I think it would be well advised for those of you looking to this movie in the hopes (or the fears) that it will be an updated Willy Wonka to attempt to forget about Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory and instead view this movie as the screen adaptation of the book 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'.
In fact, if I remember correctly, Roald Dahl was not happy with 'Willy Wonka', which I can understand since the book is incredibly darker than the movie.
Hopefully, with Burton directing, we can get a more faithful interpretation of the book that stays true to the dark material.
And you don't find Johnny Depp (ala pirates of the c.) to be just a shade creepy? Depp is a good choice, methinks, and I don't think that this is going to be a bad movie.
Will it live up to the high bar set in the 70's? Perhaps, but I think you (and everyone else) should compare it to the book, not the Gene Wilder starring flick that we all know and most of us love (I have a friend that won't watch movies with midgets--eg, willow, willy wonka, ewoks, etc).
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
Are you kidding? We're at freaking war in Iraq, soldiers are taking the SoD to task for the shit they have to ride into battle in, and most people are completely oblivious to the knucklehead who got us into this fine mess.
Three years ago we witnessed something astounding, two jets colliding with the WTC towers and one with the Pentagon and, victims families aside, most americans are right back on track to worrying about which color iPod to get and whether they'll have enough beer in the cooler for the bowl games.
I'm not saying we're stupid or anything, but we're remarkably resilient in bouncing back into our own little bubbles after a catastrophe, so long as it didn't directly touch us. Aliens could be all over the place and we'd just want to get through it so we can rebuild our civilisation and see how Survivor Vanuatu comes out.
Meanwhile, in news that will ruin my life for the next 3 days or so:
Pixar has pushed back their last feature, while paired with a certain evil empire, Cars until May 2006 (insert riot here) which had been due Nov 2005. This is so they can sell more DVDs for your holiday shopping pleasure later in 2006 (the fucked up logic escapes me, but Dreamworks is doing the same shit with Shrek 3, moving it back to May 2007)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Don't go watch the fucking movie.
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
War of the Worlds is an interesting example of the way derivative art works.
It's not that much of a story: aliens attack, humans flee/fight/cower, aliens die of a cold.
But it keeps getting remade. Why?
I think it's mostly because of the way Orson Welles planted the meme in our consciousness. At the time, it was plausible to people that Mars was inhabited and even hostile, and of course the presentation believed the central conceit perfectly. Meanwhile the particular pitfalls of asynchronous simplex communication (people turning the radio on after the disclaimer; people appending their own interpretations and extrapolations when explaining what others entering the room are discovering) did nothing to reduce its credibility.
So while the story isn't all that fascinating, the legend is, and derivative art capitalizes on the legend. Titanic is the single most expensive and profitable example, but I'd bet the budgets of the many remakes of War of the Worlds would be even more than what's been spent on the Titanic story.
- Honesty: he built what is essentially a giant mousetrap for children, and rigged his own lottery.
- Patience: instead of actually doing something to pass on his empire (such as, I don't know, raising kids), he wants to pluck a ready-made perfect heir from the masses.
- Humility: you're kidding, right ? He styles himself so far above humanity (literally, too), that he might as well be Apollo. Or Narcissus.
- Kindness: here, have some blueberry candy, kids ! Mwa ha ha ha ! j00 d34d f00 !
- Charity: see "Patience". He has studied humanity thoroughly; he knows to expect the worst.
- Generosity: can we say, "financial empire", "media blitz", and "addiction-fostering ad campaign" ?
- Flexibility: he is certainly whimsical, but Willie Wonka's methods are set in stone for all eternity. Feed chocolate to kids until they explode; if it was good enough 100 years ago, it's good enough now.
And that's just what can be gleaned from his relations to other humans ! I am not even talking about his enslavement of an entire alien race.I hardly think that Wonka is looking for someone "Good". He is looking for someone Gullible enough to take the fall when the SEC probe arrives.
>|<*:=
Ok so I wonder if this will be the case in the new movie as well. I never did like Granpa Joe for the following reason... HE WAS A TOTAL LEECH! Don't believe me? Think about this:
1) He's laid up in bed for 10 years, not able to work, living off of Charlie's Mom's generosity. She has to take in laundry and all sorts of odd jobs in order to support the hanger's on in the house.
2) Charlie spends his newspaper money to buy Grandpa Joe tobacco. So not only is Grandpa Joe leeching off of Charlie's mom to buy his food and put a roof over his head, not to mention wash his ass, but he's got a 10 year old buying him pipe tobacco. Which is sure to throw him in the hospital at some point, and who will pay the hospital bills? Maybe Charlie can get a 4th paper route.
3) So Charlie finds some money, and his mom, just trying to instill some values into her son asks him where he got it. What does G. Joe say??? "WHO CARES WHERE HE GOT IT, ITS HIS NOW!" (Yes I am paraphrasing.) Whats the lesson? It doesnt matter where you get something, if its in your greedy f'in palms, it's your's now.
4) Then Charlie gets a golden ticket. Hooray. Grandpa Joe smells a free trip coming, and what do you know. Not ONLY can he walk, but he can dance like a madman! So much for 10 years in bed, not even collecting disability insurance.
5) He breaks the rules, and drinks the gassy stuff. He and Charlie mess shtuff up, and don't feel badly in the least.
6) When he gets called on it, he's all pissed that he got caught, and totally turns it around on Willie Wonka. He says "Screw this rule follower Charlie, lets go sell that gobstopper that you PROMISED to keep to yourself. Willie's only fault here is that he gives in. I think its out of desperation, since all the other kids are gone and apparently he has cancer of the spleen or something.
So to sum up, Grandpa Joe Sucks. The movie is good though.
I thought Depp looked almost as though they tried to add a little Michael Jackson to his appearance
NOT the glove wearing hip look, but the freaky guy in his 40s Jackson
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
But as a movie? Can adults really stomach all the moralizing? Wait, time for a song about watching too much television! And here's one about chewing bubble gum! If Depp's version is going to cut back on that, and get back into the darker sequences like the boat ride, then I'd be all for it.
By the way, I think the poster looks too Clockwork Orange for me.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
What's the big f-ing deal about Tim Burton? The guy has NEVER directed a good movie.
You're on crack...
Batman
Batman 2
Sleepy Hollow
Nightmare Before Christmas
Ed Wood
Tim Burton gives us something different with every new movie. You may not like his style, but at least the guy comes up with original ideas...a wonderful break from Spielburg, Michael Bay, etc. It should say something that Johnny Depp signs on so often.
Well, I can't view these trailers on my Linux box, so I can't comment directly on Mr. Depp's adequacy or inadequacy. However, commenting on your comment, I think that this character is very, very hard to get right. The trick is the character has to be tinged with menace without being overtly menacing. After all, the children are supposed to think Wonka's a patsy just like their unspeakable parents. On the other hand, you don't want to believe that Wonka would actually let the children be killed or really harmed. The fantasy for kids watching this movie is the that they can get a taste of freedom and its consequences, not the full adult load.
Mr. Depp's screen personality does have me concerned. It's very very easy to fall into the trap of winking at the audience -- the way that actors in really bad Gilbert and Sullivan productions insist on being in on the joke. It'd be very easy to turn this story into a loud, archly self referential but ultimately neutered romp. The kind of movies idiot reviewers will find "magical", even though they would not know magic if it conjured a demon from hell to bite them on the ass.
A fantasy movie has to be believable.
Look at the scene in the original movie where Charlie and Granpa confront Wonka in his office. It was a sublime and courageous performance by Mr. Wilder.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.